Originally posted by Emipie
But in the tether-video, there is no up or down, but still we see all objects as 'donuts'. Meaning from topside or from beneath.
If those where all donutshaped ufo's, shouldn't we then at least see some of them from the side, not revealing a donutshape ??
Ms Rowlands says she filmed the object while it hovered in the sky about two miles away. "It resembled a giant disc with a bite taken out of the bottom," she told reporters. "As it hovered over the woods, it seemed to expand and then get smaller again.” We could see it pulsing as if it started up and then it just went and came really close at one stage and I thought it was going to land in the field.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mikesingh
The donuts are not pulsating. This has been answered. They are tumbling, rotating. Because they are irregularly shaped the intensity of the light reflected by them varies with the rotation.
They are totally out of focus. That is why they appear to hold the same shape and orientation. We are not seeing the particles, we are seeing the distorted image of an out of focus object. The circular shape we see, as has been demonstrated, has nothing to do with the actual shape of the particles but with the characteristics of the camera.
[edit on 2/5/2009 by Phage]
Originally posted by lernmore
This kind of footage is just a bit hard to explain away IMO...
Google Video Link
Originally posted by Exopolitico
I would be so curious to know which branch of the US government you belong to...I am yet to see one single post of yours that ever agrees with anything plausible. If I didn't know better, I would say you are a paid intel disinformation agent/debunker.
Originally posted by mikesingh
As I had mentioned earlier, what we're seeing are donuts a few km across but probably having a thickness of a few meters which would not be visible whilst seeing it edge-on.
Originally posted by Majorion
In exopolitico's defense, as I speak, he already got 6 stars for his post.. and considering his post is on the middle of page 3; you'd have to agree that that's quite a rare thing to happen. Not saying he's right or wrong, but his point is evidently somewhat valid with all due respect